Navigate:

October 25, 2008

Categories:

Popping up in my inbox lately, and on some conservative blogs, is the allegation that Barack Obama was once a member of the Communist/Socialist/secretive/evil New Party, which is based (reasonably) on a New Party publication describing him in passing as a member.

When this first emerged, I called up the founder of the New Party, a University of Wisconsin professor named Joel Rogers, who objected both to the characterization of the party and Obama's relationship to it.

On the first point, the New Party was a attempt to build a model of political fusion. It dissolved after losing a Supreme Court ruling aimed at making fusion -- a system under which more than one party can run the same candidate, which exists in some states -- universal.

It's strongest heir, run by another New Party founder, is New York's labor-backed Working Families Party, which cross-endroses (mostly) Democratic candidates in the hopes of pulling the party to the left. Such noted socialists as Hillary Clinton and various Republican state senate candidates have run on the line. There are running arguments over whether they're good for the political process, but no particular taint of radicalism.

Rogers described the party's platform including national health insurance and wage insurance, quality education, and environmentalism. Those are positions that basically placed the New Party, ideologically, well within the left half of the Democratic Party. The aim, in fact, was to be the "conscience of the Democratic Party," Rogers said, though they also endorsed the occasional Republican.

As for "socialist"?

"'Socialist' means is you try to whatever extent to move the means of production under public ownership," Rogers said. "The New Party was never about that."

"We didn’t really have members," said Rogers. They also didn't have a ballot line in Chicago. So he said the line in the party newsletter appeared to refer to the fact that the party had endorsed him.

Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt also said he was never a member.

UPDATE: Rogers emails to clarify how his party could have referred to "members" without having any:

I meant that there was no formal membership structure in the usual party sense of members, with people registering with election boards for primary and other restrictive elections, for the obvious reasons that we didn't even have official party status in any state and were always looking to get progressive registered Ds, Rs, Gs, or whomever to accept our nomination if we liked them. We did have regular supporters whom many called "members," but it just meant contributing regularly, not getting voting rights or other formal power in NP governance....

Anyway, [Obama] certainly wasn't either. He was just a good candidate whom we endorsed.

Share this Article

Reader Comments (103)

Pages

1

Another right wing hysteria shot down. I really fear for my country if the cultural warriors win again. Look at the complete mess they have made in the last eight years - yet they fool at least 40% of Americans every time.

Jesus, Ben! A fringe socialist party endorses Obama and you say his membership is "reasonable." WTF? Hey, Todd Palin belonged to a political party that wanted Alaska to secede from the United States! That is called a TRAITOR! When the hell are you people going to call Sarah and Todd Palin the radicals that they are??

I thought the days of reds in the closet and communists under the bed were long gone. But I underestimated right-wing desperation. These allegations that Obama is a "socialist" are utterly ridiculous. How disappointing and pathetic that John McCain himself is parroting them.

fox news, hate radio, the RNC, GOP, and the paid trolls and smear merchants, are really dumb, it is like they take pride in being ignorant, America is in a financial turmoil and facing 2 wars with no end in sight costing over 20billion dollars a month and all we get is dumb stuff from them no policy whatsoever

There is more to this story and it is all beginning to unravel. Obama is quite something isn't he? The media has to find excuses and obfuscations for his associations and behaviors. Doesn't that ring any alarm bells? And still the kool-aid keeps flowing...

And yet, these same Republicans somehow never mention the fact that McCain was involved with an organization that illegally sold arms to Iran, murdered thousands of innocent people in an attempt to overthrow governments in Latin America, and was directly responsible for and involved with, the funding of Bin Laden and the Taliban in the 80's. You right wing nutjobs are the biggest bunch of phony self-righteous hypocrites I've ever seen in my life.

Someone please post the info that Washington received around strange UFO sightings as the Election approaches? Not even sure what this means but someone inside the McCain campaign leaked that they are nervous what this will mean to their candidacy moving forward. Whatever it means it's not good news for McCain.

Ben-Where is your story about John McCain secretly meeting with Pinochet in 1985 when the U.S. was trying to get senior members of his government for terrorism? Conveniently, McCain never publicly reported the meeting.

Popping up in your inbox next will be emails saying that Barack Obama was fathered by an alien. That he once lived with Bigfoot. That he was a member of the Manson cult. That he practices witchcraft. That he eats babies. That he's a shape-shifter. I can't wait till this election is over and all the cuckoos fly back to their nests.

The same way Republicans never mention that it was the family of a Ronald Reagan ambassador who appointed Bill Ayers to that education board, along with several other Republicans like the President of the Unversity, and that that same Republican family is financing John McCain's campaign to this very day.

You call the founder of the group, parrot to us what he told you, and that is reporting? And that is the most restrictive definition of socialism that exists. I am not sure Obama is not a socialist in that sense, but your use here is pure misdirection.
Why don't you evaluate and discuss the evidence the bloggers have that (1) Obama was in fact a member of the New Party and that (2) the party is indeed socialist in the "spread the wealth" sense even if it is not socialist in the "control the means of production" sense?

from the newsletter "New Party members won three other primaries this spring in Chicago: Barack Obama (State Senate), Michael Chandler (Democratic Party Committee) and Patricia Martin (Cook County judiciary)."
http://www.youdecide2008.com/2008/10/24/barack-obama-the-radical-chicago-new-party-socialist-with-evidence/

Actually if those who are rabid Obama supporters actually go to the archived site, it is not a fleeting mention on a newsletter. Obama did in fact run as a member of the New Party. I'm not a Republican nor a Democrat, but I'm smart enough to research the topic before jumping into the vat of Kool-Aid. I want to be informed before I cast my ballot instead of just engaging in hatespeak which seems to be the political M.O. of both parties.

Total whitewashing of Palin's ties to the terrorist secessionist AIP, Geoff. She addressed their convention SEVERAL times - including this past June - and sleeps with a former member. Degree of Seperation? ONE!

It is hard to believe Obama anymore.
1. Wright-at firs he denied-he lied and then he squirmed.
2. Ayers.- my husband and relatives served in our own country during Vietnam when they were stationed in the US on riot controls during Ayers, Weathermen, Vietnam riots, DC riots etc. I know that his ties with Ayers is not what he says because Ayers is my generation and is a very infamous character-more known than Timothy McVay. Obama is not stupid-Ayers, Obama, Wright, Phlager are all known names in Chicago and have crossed paths for years and are all tied in knowing one another-what level is not as important as why does he always lie.
IN the the last Presidential debate Obama downright lied to the American people about launching his career in Ayers home and he knows it and those of us who are older know he is lying.
You can even see the young Tom Brokaw on Utube when Brokaw broke a story on Dohrn being wanted by the FBI with her associatin with the Weathermen.
If you are involved in Chicago politics you know Ayers and Obama says he does not he is not very bright. In addition, Obama's wife worked with Ayers wife at the same law firm where Obama met his wife-Obama knows Ayers -public record.
3. He lied about his abortion vote.
4. He lied about his birth certificate and he would not produce it right away-some say it is because he went to live in Indonesia whne he was young.He went to school there when his mother married an Indonesian. This man who is on utube who is a Democart says his party did not vet Obama properly-Hillary alluded to it. (I know Indonesia is a very closed society as my son worked on Diego Garcia and traveled in Asia much and said that he would not go into Indonesia and was warned by EX-Pats not to go there) So I cannot see how he could go to school there unless he was a citizen of Indonesia. They do not like Americans at all and have not for many years.
5. He will not give up his medical records-only Presidential candidate who has not. Some say it is because he smokes and does not want the American people to know that. Others say it would show something about his past.
6. His brother George lives in Kenya and George lives in a shack. Obama says he barely knows him yet he met him two years ago in Kenya when Obama went there. In additon, he wrote about his brother George in one of his books. Who lies that he barely knows anything about a brother after he meets him and writes about him.
It is like Obama cannot admit stuff becasue his nose is starting to grow bigger and bigger

You see folks... being a journalist today is easy... You just make a few phone calls, google wikipedia and e-mail once or twice and you can always be sure that Politico will always find a perfect explanation. If Obama spokesman says he wasn't a member then this means that he wasn't a member. Obama never lies.

Just more propphands from McSame and party!
Here is some facts! McCain and his campaign since the change in the midst of the primaries are very suspect. Everyone is wondering what happened to John McCain? He is not the same John McCain! Now if it was the democrats saying that, the thought could be suspect. But it isn't or initially wasn't the democrats! Republicans were turning from John McCain in large numbers, Some even becoming Independents in the process. The change seems to have come around that time of his need for cash. I believe it was at this time that someone offered John McCain the money and help he needed to accomplish his goal of winning the nomination and a greater chance of winning the final prize of becoming the President. I believe John McCain sold his soul and since that day has lost all control over both his campaign and the choices he can make, both as the nominee and as President if he does in fact achieve that position in this election!
There is one character in this that has surfaced which might explain this change we have seen. That Person is one we have all seen mixed in a very bad light in the White house. This person is involved in someway with both John McCain and Sarah Palin. He was also involved in causing Nixon to resign. That Person is Gordon Liddy. Sarah Palin tried to appoint Liddy to a position in Alaska until another republican denied it, noting Liddy's involvement in Watergate. Liddy is good friends with McCain and both have made the claim, although McCain recently claimed on David Letterman not to know Liddy, then after the break McCain claimed to know him in passing. Liddy held a fund raiser for McCain in his house! McCain claimed that Liddy was rehabilitated. Liddy is a felon not allowed to have weapons registered in his name or any weapon in his possesion! Yet Liddy has had his wife register many guns in his wifes name. Liddy has bragged about using pictures of Bill and Hillary Clinton as target practice! Liddy has told people on his radio show, To stop the ATF from disarming you, shoot them in the face no armor in the face! Liddy admitted to wanting to blow up buildings and bridges. Liddy admitted to either wanting or trying to kill a journalist and politicians. Liddy has said that he will kill anyone who gets in his way! Liddy is or could be considered to be a militia! Who else has strong ties to Militia? Sarah Palin got her start in politics from the guy who started the AIP in Alaska. The primary goal of the AIP is to get Alaska removed as a state from the USA! This same man still has an open door in Sarah Palin's govenors office. Todd Palin had been a member of the AIP until just the end of last year! The AIP wants the republicans who cause them trouble gone from politics and I don't think they will stop at Alaskan politics. It all fits into a nice little picture of corruption at its finest! It fits that McCain's campaign has kept Palin away from the media, that they have been tricked into not checking Palin out! What else is there? We need these questions answered! What about McCain and why did he lie about Liddy? What is he hiding? In 2007, McCain went on Liddy?s radio show and told him:
I'm proud of you, I'm proud of your family....It's always a pleasure for me to come on your program, Gordon, and congratulations on your continued success and adherence to the principles and philosophies that keep our nation great.
By contrast, Obama has never said that he?s "proud" of Bill Ayers
Now Obama answered the Ayers question! I demand to know the answer to Liddy and his connection to both McCain and Palin.
GOTV for Obama!
Obama Biden 08

Why are you ruining all the wingnuts' fun by actually looking at the facts, Ben? You're supposed to say "this New Party connection ends this campaign for Obama. He's a socialist -- it's a smoking gun." And then you're supposed to send it to Drudge for a nice big red siren headline. Oh well, I'm sure someone else will do this thing right eventually and Drudge will post it then... Your loss, Ben...

these stupid ass republicans cannot loose with honor, they are desperate and will keep coming with as many made up stories as they can, the more they lie, the bigger i lost i am hoping, i want them embarass for what they have done to this country with their radical crap. The right wing nuts wants to run this country so they can dictate their religious preferences to the rest of us, they think that they are so right that they are willing to destroy the country for their nonsense.
I WILL VOTE NO TO MCCAIN AND ALL HIS STUPID ASS CRONIES, THE STINKING REPUBLICAN PARTY WHO HAS DESTROYED OUR ECONOMY AND OUR REPUTATION AROUND THE WORLD

You really have to love Ben Smith's "journalism"/stenography. "We really didn't have any members, so Obama was never a member. We just printed brochures and called Obama a member, that's all". What a load of crap! "We weren't socialists, we just espoused socialism" More BS! Next, Ben Smith will tell you that "The New Party" and ACORN were never affiliated and they never were located in the same small building for over three years. Seriously Ben, you are the laziest "journalist" out there. All you did was call up an Obama sycophant and write down what he told you to write down. Meanwhile, there is hard evidence all over reputable blogs about this connection and what "the New Party" was all about. If you look really hard at Ben Smith's work, three things will jump out at you. One, he's extremely lazy. Two, when he sits down to write an article, the outcome of the article has already been decided. Ben just looks for whatever he can find to prove his predetermined outcome and disregards conflicting evidence. And three, Ben has no desire to tell the truth because he's a partisan committing an abortion on journalism.

URGENT! This is a must read for everyone. Please forward to everyone you know. Remember, Obama purchased 30 minutes of prime time tv next week -- now we know why.
http://www.pennypresslv.com/Obama%27s_Use_of_Hidden_Hypnosis_techniques_in_His_Speeches.pdf

Good lord people what does this article prove? That Obama is being endorsed by yet another anti-us group. Or perhaps that Obama has in the past had ties with people that hate our country. As if we didn't already have this info but people don't care. All they care about is not putting another republican in the white house. And this is a chance for all the left-wing libs to finally prove that they are not racist and embrace all. It wouldn't matter if videos of Obama came out with him ****in on the flag he'd still have his groupies. It's time for us to quit worrying about who endoreses who and start looking at these two worthless pukes we have to choose from for president.

I use my real name.
I get up in the morning and run to my computer to check the latest news on what opponents are calling Senator Obama today. Will it be 'terrorist,' 'socialist,'
'communist,'Marxist,' or what. It becomes laughable when the opponents of Obama, including that woman from Alaska, seem to come up with a new one every day. Get a life.

Obama is in fact a socialist in his policies and ideals. It resinates with people who are in the poverty level to lower middle-class. People with money have it for a reason, people without money are without it for a reason. It's called common sense and money management. Obama connected to Ayers, who started the Foundation that Obama was named president of, and both serving on the Woods Foundation is a deeper story nobody will report. Ayers was a member of the New Left in the 60's and the SDS (a socialist student movement.) Ayers then formed the weathermen which performed all the attacks. New Left is socialist, SDS was socialist, weathermen was socialist. Ayers daddy was rich and got most of his actions paid away. Yet nobody cares that this Ayers guy is in Obamas ear bigtime. You vote for Obama, you will be the downfall of America the great nation as we know it. To Obama and all who support him, the pied piper is playing. Obama has a lot of people fooled and deceived. After you elect him, it's too late. We know who will be at fault, and God will hold everyone accountable one day. Vote accordingly.

Hey "McCain Palin 08" - yes, God will hold us all accountable..i believe Obama is that accountability, pal. The clear and present danger to our nation is the lying, manipulative, fear mongering Pharisees that are the religious right in this country. For all you Christians out there (of which i am one..a charismatic no less), let me challenge you... read the words of Christ-who did He speak up for? While He had nothing against them, it sure wasn't the wealthy or comfortable..it was the widowed, orphaned, sick and disenfranchised. The healthy had no need for a physician, and so it is today. Wow, Jesus sounds like a Socialist to me, by Palin standards... Republicans are doomed because they profess a love of God but dishonor him by worshiping a political system called Capitalism, that is fundamentally good, but in its extreme is an affront to Christian principles. Redistribution of wealth? "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's..." The disposition of your "hard earned money" is not God's concern - your attitude toward those who suffer from lack is. Grow up America, get beyond your partisan politics, our issues are much bigger than that.

frege said: "the party is indeed socialist in the "spread the wealth" sense even if it is not socialist in the "control the means of production" sense".....Hey frege, there's no such thing as "socialist in the spread the wealth sense". You wing nuts can't just change the definition of stuff at your convenience to use to use in your ever present efforts at fear and smear. I mean, that's all you guys do. And what about that murderous fascist group that McCain was involved in? You Gastapo nut jobs have no concept of equity. You have to have a problem with Politicians having contact with certain groups, regardless of party or ideology, you can't just say that Democrats only can't have contact with certain groups and act like you're oblivious to the fact that Politicans on the right have contact with groups that are even worse.

You know, I read a lot of comments by self-absorbed, egocentric, pyscho-wingnuts on this site about how they believe Obama was involved with this or that group. You retards have no credibility. I think it's the fascist inclinations in right-wingers blood that leaves them totally incapable of equity. It is absurdly ridiculous, and hypocritical, for you to get all self-righteously indignant (and your self-righteous indignation is just as phony as Sean Hannity's) and be perfectly OK with the extremist groups with their extreme ideologies and activities, that McCain and Palin have been involved with. You people are total idiots. It's pig-headed, head-up-your-ass bigotry either way, whether it's because of Obama's funny name, his skin tone, or the fact that he's not a right-wing fascist like yourselves. Either way, you have to apply the same standard, and doing so basically leaves you with no one to vote for. You people aren't at all honest. You don't have a problem with "groups", you just have a problem with Obama for one of the reasons that I just mentioned. Well, we Obama supporters have a problem with you because you're a bunch of dimwits with the honesty of clepto and critical thinking skills of a pet rock.

Nobody cares about this. It adds nothing to the debate. The idea that Obama has socialistic tendencies, and his domestic policies lean in that direction, are already known.

That he may or may not have been part of this flakey group doesn't add anymore to that perception. Nobody who suspects that needs anymore "proof" about "membership" in this organization.

The real point is his policies themselves. The massive wealth redistribution, the increased governmental control of economic assets he intends to pursue, and the great abyss that is his record of grappling with global security crises on top of this economic crisis are the the things people care about.

Remember - McCain and his supporters are following the Mantra from the Bush/Rove Playbook
"Say ANYTHING, The people of this country are stupid and when all else fails, blame it on Clinton and/or the Democrats"...

Look at this whack job mrj. See, this is the problem that I have with you right wing hate willfully delusional hatemongers. Nothing he said is true, but he could care less. His gut tells him that right ideology is right, the fact that he leans heavily in that direction tends to mean that his critical thinking skill are lax, and he believes anything negative about Obama whether it's true or not. The only people having government take control of private assets are Republicans (well not *only*, but they were the leaders and the ones who proposed the idea), but the facts don't matter to nutjobs like him. Driven by nothing but their gut, they just "imagine" that all these things are attributed to Obama. And Obama is not proposing a "massive distribution of wealth", he's mearly proposing a sensible tax structure that stimulates job creation and economic growth. You right-wingers are a plague on sensible mankind.

Welcome to the Socialist Republic of the United States America!
It took our good old Republican Party to turn America into a practically a socialist state.
Clearly, our wonderful ?Tax cutting? ?Private enterprise? ?Small government? Republicans have completely done the reverse. It is clear that Republicans have done so much more damage to our country than all of America?s enemies combined! George W. Bush becomes the first president of our new ?the Socialist Republic of United States.? Our biggest enemies have been, not the swarthy Arab in the long beard with turban, holding a AK 47 threateningly, like media wants you to believe, but for all practical purposes America?s real enemy turn out to be a blithering Republican Party who have brought America to her knees! But as usual Republicans go on TV as polish looking well-groomed fellows, wearing pin-stripe suits, with a glinting American flags on his lapel, and usual stands in front of the star spangled background. They wrap them in the flag at every opportunity. Often their campaigns begin with raising the flag and singing our national anthem. But Republican ignorance and incompetence has practically destroyed our country. But just as John McCain says, they all keep chanting the same tune. ?No new taxes? ?Small government for America? we hear the same refrain that we heard since Ronald Reagan, while they do the opposite and while our country has declined and even imploded! They still insist that they?ll defend the tax payers over his dead body! But, instead small government, the government got bigger and bigger. Instead ?No taxes? they gave you the most extensive tax payer bailout! Under them you got the biggest economic collapse in our history that rivaled the great depression. It is frightning to think of the extent of Republican incompetence, corruption and mismanagement is worst in our history; worse that of the worst of a decomposing third world country! And once we took pride in our country?s free markets and free enterprise system is in shambles. We were forced to become more like a socialist state where the government has a hand in everything. This is a direct result of policies and ideology and practice of small-minded and provincial politicians that populated our Government since Ronald Reagan. United States Government has more or less now ?nationalized? the entire financial system and America has become a socialist state for all practical purposes. It took a good old ?small government? ?no taxes? ?no regulations? Republican like George W. Bush to turn America ?Socialist? state! John McCain is warming up the same leftovers for you.Welcome to the Socialist Republic of the United States America!

Welcome to the Socialist Republic of the United States America!
It took our good old Republican Party to turn America into a practically a socialist state.
Clearly, our wonderful ?Tax cutting? ?Private enterprise? ?Small government? Republicans have completely done the reverse. It is clear that Republicans have done so much more damage to our country than all of America?s enemies combined! George W. Bush becomes the first president of our new ?the Socialist Republic of United States.? Our biggest enemies have been, not the swarthy Arab in the long beard with turban, holding a AK 47 threateningly, like media wants you to believe, but for all practical purposes America?s real enemy turn out to be a blithering Republican Party who have brought America to her knees! But as usual Republicans go on TV as polish looking well-groomed fellows, wearing pin-stripe suits, with a glinting American flags on his lapel, and usual stands in front of the star spangled background. They wrap them in the flag at every opportunity. Often their campaigns begin with raising the flag and singing our national anthem. But Republican ignorance and incompetence has practically destroyed our country. But just as John McCain says, they all keep chanting the same tune. ?No new taxes? ?Small government for America? we hear the same refrain that we heard since Ronald Reagan, while they do the opposite and while our country has declined and even imploded! They still insist that they?ll defend the tax payers over his dead body he insisted! And you believed them, once?even twice. But, instead small government, the government got bigger and bigger. Instead ?No taxes? Republicans gave you the most extensive tax payer bailout! Republicans gave you the biggest economic collapse in our history that rivaled the great depression. His incompetence, corruption and mismanagement is worst in our history; worse that of the worst of a decomposing third world country! And once we took pride in our country?s free markets and free enterprise system is in shambles. We were forced to become more like a socialist state where the government has a hand in everything. This is a direct result of policies and ideology and practice of small-minded and provincial politicians that populated our Government since Ronald Reagan. United States Government has more or less now ?nationalized? the entire financial system and America has become a socialist state for all practical purposes. It took a good old ?small government? ?no taxes? ?no regulations? Republican like George W. Bush to turn America ?Socialist? state! John McCain is warming up the same leftovers for you! I like to welcome to the Socialist Republic of the United States America, on be half of the Republican Party!

reality check | October 26, 2008 at 01:31 AM
Posted a web address leading to a thinly veiled attempt to manipulate the reader into fearing Obama with a pseudo-intellectual 67 page dissertation claiming OBAMA is hypnotizing us all to support him - skewing Erickson of NLP fame (poor Erickson...He has been maligned and abused by so many...) , twisting and turning statements taken out of context from older tomes on the theory of hypnosis (many proven to be false) to justify the inane, mundane, insane premise...Paranoia, even when researched to the NTH degree is still paranoia.
Using unproven assertions, unvetted materials, and premises that were disproven over and over again, as well as statements pulled from lectures on Hitler and unvetted assertions from more pseudo-intellectuals and "experts"....
Another fear-mongering pathological liar trying to manipulate using the same tactics that have been tried repeatedly to skew election results....
If ya can't beat him then Scare everybody to death......
If the author TRULY believes his twisted logic then there is something to fear here but it isn't Obama.
If the author of this little propaganda piece will go to this extent and is this divorced from reality then one is left to wonder, if confronted, will this guy become a real danger to himself or others?

wake up People this country is already socialist. Given we have Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, Workers Comp, Unemployment, SSI, LIHEAP, food cupboards, WIC, and so on. So to think we arn't there yet is just plain stupid. Socialism is a part of the USA so just get over yourself

This is only about the 20th documented link Obama has with Socialist groups. The New Party's own literature said he was a "member".
What will happen after this Marxist is elected and 65% of the country realize they have been duped! Better buy a gun.

To get the truth not warmed over Obama koolaid see Stanley Kurtz' article on www.corner.nationalreview.com
I dare you libs to go there.
Here is what Mr. Kurtz' investigation has uncovered:
Have you ever heard of a political party that has no members? Ben Smith has, and he believes. Based on a claim by New Party co-founder Joel Rogers that "we didn?t really have members," Smith seems to think he?s disposed of the issue of Barack Obama?s ties to the "dread New Party."
In other words, Smith has accepted a transparently absurd statement by an intensely interested Obama supporter responding to a dangerous charge just before an election, while rejecting not only logic, but written evidence contemporaneous with the events in question. Smith has also ignored arguments at the heart of the New Party dispute.
In his post on "The Obama Temptation," Mark Levin describes a press that disregards evidence of Obama?s past radicalism, mentions it only when it must, and then simply to dismiss those who raise it in the first place. Smith?s credulous, incurious, sarcastic, and transparently biased post fits the bill.
Let?s have a look at the evidence in question. First and foremost, the spring 1996 issue of New Party News, the leading publication of the New Party at the time, clearly claims that Barack Obama is a party member. If the New Party didn?t actually have members, why would the chief party organ claim that it did? Again, logically, how can a political party exist without members?
Rogers claims that the identification of Obama as a party member "appeared to refer to the fact that the party had endorsed him." That claim is inconsistent with the way the New Party News treats Danny Davis. Consider, first, this picture of Obama with Danny Davis and several others. Notice that the caption identifies three victorious "NP-endorsed candidates" standing alongside two "Chicago New Party members." How could those two non-endorsed, non-candidates be identified as party members if the New Party "didn?t really have members?"
Continued...

Ben Smith, why did you fail?
That he received the endorsement and became a New Party member is confirmed by the New Party itself:
?Illinois: Three NP-members won Democratic primaries last Spring and face off against Republican opponents on election day: Danny Davis (U.S. House), Barack Obama (State Senate) and Patricia Martin (Cook County Judiciary).?
http://web.archive.org/web/20010306031216/www.newparty.org/up9610.html

Part II of Kurtz Article:
Even if the New Party, contrary to Rogers? absurd claim, did indeed have members, does the caption show that Danny Davis and Barack Obama could not have been members? After all, Davis and Obama are identified merely as "NP-endorsed candidates," rather than as "Chicago New Party members."
Take a look at the account of Davis?s history with the New Party on page 2 of the spring 1996 issue of New Party News. NPN explains that in early 1995, Davis chaired a meeting at which several New Party members spoke: "When he heard the NP members talk about their efforts to fight for jobs and the environment, he quickly became an NP member himself. Several months later, a long-time congressional incumbent announced her retirement. After consulting with leaders of community, political, and labor groups, Davis decided to enter the race."
So according to the chief national organ of the New Party, published at the time of the events in question, Davis became a New Party member (something Rogers claims could not have happened), months before he even had an opportunity to run for office, much less an occasion to be endorsed by the New Party in his run for that office.
This establishes that the New Party did have members, that membership was not the same as being endorsed for office, and that the caption on the Obama picture in no way proves that Obama could not have been both a New Party endorsed candidate and a member, just as we are told he was on the front page of the spring 1996 issue of New Party News.
This is entirely consistent with the evidence I posted yesterday from pages 292-293 of David B. Reynolds book, Taking the High Road. Reynolds notes that New Party chapters in places like Chicago did run candidates on the Democratic Party line, which thereby "blurred political distinctions." But that didn?t mean that New Party membership was non-existent:
"While Danny Davis joined the New Party and agreed to promote it, he ran as a Democrat." So, according to Reynolds, it was entirely possible for Davis to run as a Democrat, and yet still be a member and supporter of the New Party. And this, of course, is entirely consistent with what we?ve already learned from the spring 1996 issue of the New Party News.

Part 3 Of Kurtz Article:
We know that in early 1995, before he even realized that he would soon run for Congress, Davis was a New Party member. So what was Barack Obama doing in early 1995?
As I showed in "Inside Obama?s Acorn" and "Senator Stealth," in early 1995, Obama was moving, with great success, to push the Woods Fund into strengthening its already existing support for community organizers, especially including ACORN.
During that period, Obama was cooperating closely with Madeline Talbott, a key figure in the formation of the New Party nationally. And as I?ve shown in "Obama and Ayers Pushed Radicalism on Schools" and "Obama?s Challenge," in his position as board chair of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, Obama began channeling yet more foundation money to Chicago ACORN in 1995.
This is important, because the Chicago New Party was largely an electoral arm of Chicago ACORN. So we know that in early 1995 (and long before that, as well), Obama had extremely close working ties with Chicago ACORN. In fact, he was funding it.
As with Davis, then, we have every reason to believe that Obama?s ties to ACORN/New Party were deep. Especially in light of these close ties, the claim that Obama was both a member and an endorsed candidate of the New Party is entirely credible.
Smith writes as though the key issue at stake in this dispute is the alleged socialism of the New Party. As I?ve made clear in "Something New Here," however, it is entirely possible to bracket the socialism question and still be disturbed by the radicalism of the New Party. Chicago?s New Party chapter was largely controlled by ACORN, with minority representation from open socialists. And we already know from a study by Rutgers political scientist Heidi J. Swarts, that ACORN members think of themselves (with good reason) as "uniquely militant...oppositional outlaws" composing "the only truly radical community organization." ACORN?s leaders, Swarts tells us, think of themselves as "a solitary vanguard of principled leftists."
Smith tries to diffuse the radicalism charge by focusing on Rogers? self-interested description of the New Party?s "strongest heir," New York?s Working Families Party.
But isn?t the real issue the New Party of Chicago in 1995-96? I?ve already published substantial evidence about that, which Smith has ignored in favor of a credulous touting of Rogers? self-interested talking points.
As I noted in "Something New Here," New Party endorsements were not casually granted. Instead, they were carefully targeted to a small and select group of candidates who were chosen to represent the New Party?s specific goals and image.

Part 4 of Kurtz' Rebuttal of Smith:
Although we have every reason to believe that Obama was in fact a member of the New Party, just as the New Party News, says him to be, the "mere" fact of his endorsement is anything but a minor issue. Smith might have shown more curiosity about just what it took to gain a New Party endorsement. Were endorsed candidates interviewed? Did they have to sign or otherwise affirm a statement of policy or principles? Would they not have had an opportunity to address the membership issue in the course of conversations with leadership leading to the endorsement itself? It is extremely difficult to believe, given its selectivity at this early stage, that the New Party would have endorsed any candidate at all without first carefully vetting and discussing the entire matter with him personally first. Why didn?t Smith ask Rogers about this?
It?s no surprise that Obama would try to deny his New Party ties today. But why should we believe him when he?s already so grievously misrepresented his links to ACORN, of which his New Party ties are yet another variant? On top of this, Obama had many reasons to downplay his New Party connection, even in the mid-nineties. After all, as I?ve noted, Obama was channeling hundreds of thousands of dollars in supposedly non-partisan foundation money to ACORN, at the very same moment when ACORN?s de facto electoral arm, the New Party, was endorsing him?and even, arguably, when ACORN/New Party-members were acting as his campaign foot-soldiers. (See "Inside Obama?s Acorn" for details.) We now know that this was no anomaly, but just an instance of a wider pattern of ACORN?s deeply troubling tendency to mingle the activities of its political and "non-partisan" arms.
In short, Joel Rogers? claim that Chicago New Party did not have members is not only nonsensical on its face, but is contradicted by both contemporaneous documentary evidence and later scholarly accounts. Chicago?s New Party did have members, and the Danny Davis case clearly shows that it was possible to be both a member and an endorsed candidate?and to run on the Democratic Party line as well. The New Party News treats Obama as both a member and an endorsed candidate, and we have every reason to put credence in that report. Far more than Davis himself, Obama had long-standing ties to ACORN, the alter-ego of Chicago?s New Party. Obama was even directing extensive funding to ACORN from his position at two supposedly non-partisan foundations at the very moment he was both accepting New Party endorsement and was being listed as a member in the New Party?s premier national publication. I don?t doubt that Obama needed to be cautious, even at the time, about publicizing his highly questionable conduct. But the evidence of his party membership is credible, in writing, and published in contemporary documents. The denials, on the other hand, are self-interested, illogical, and many years after the fact.
Every thing about Ben Smith?s post, from its sarcastic title, to its sarcastic content indicates a bias against conservative concerns, combined with an utterly incurious and credulous acceptance of even the most questionable assertions by Obama supporters. Smith seems to believe he?s disposed of the issue altogether, when in fact he has neither confronted nor seriously discussed key evidence and arguments at stake in this dispute. There is something profoundly wrong with the mainstream press?s conduct in this election

Smith,
A political party without members? Have you seen the archives of their website, newsletters, meeting minutes, etc? Do you just simply take everything that they say at face value? What kind of journalist are you? Oh, I forgot that you are just rehearsing for a job as in a possible Nobama administration reeducation camp.
You are beyond pathetic. You are truly a piece of human trash.

With the proof all over the place you are letting Americans down once again. Why the media keeps lying for Obama I will never know. Are you going to keep lying for him for the next four years? Have you not seen how things have gotten worse since the Dems got control in Washington? No I am not a republican. I can look at facts and see them for what they are. Something you can't do.

With respect to Obama's membership or association with the New Party, you're either the sorriest excuse for a reporter that has ever lived, or nothing more that Obama's two-bit whore.

Your lame regurgitation of Obama talking points didn't bother to mention multiple contemporaneous accounts of Obama's endorsement by the New Party along with multiple examples of the New Party itself claiming Barack Obama as a member.

Despite your sarcasm, many of us do dread a socialist government that would eliminate our economic liberty. The New Party was an offshoot of the Democratic Socialist Party and also closely affiliated with ACORN, as was B.H.Obama. Obama appeared at their functions, was labeled a member in their contemporaneous literature, and was one of a very small group of endorsed candidates. What commitments did Obama have to make to their far-left agenda to get their party endorsement? A real journalist would have asked.

For the real truth, try this site - newzeal.blogspot.com/2008/10/obama-file-41-obama-was-new-party.html
It explains it with a bit more clarity then Ben can, since it digs in for the truth, and doesn't just accept someones word as fact, pictures and words make more of an impact than just buying what someone says hook line and sinker.

Jesus, what a sorry excuse for journalism your post is! Regurgitated Obama talking points, sarcasm, and deliberate disregard of the salient facts. Obama was a member of (not just endorsed by) a radical-left fringe party, and you're willing to pass on uncritically Rogers' self-serving lie that 'we didn't really have members'. Also, the infantile triumphalism of the Obama partisans in this Comments section is pretty repulsive. Some of these people really sound like folks one would not want to have a beer with!

I googled this New Party guy Joel Rogers on the Web, and it so happens that his wife is Sarah E. Suskind. Sarah E. Suskind was an attorney in the small law firm of Miner, Barnhill & Galland, where Barack worked throughout the 1990s. It appears as though she worked at the same time out of firm's Madison, Wisconsin office, which was the firm's only office other than its Chicago, where Barack worked. Given the small size of the firm, the two certainly must have known each other and crossed paths. By the way, Suskind and Rogers are credited with bringing the seminal New Party voting fushion case in Minnesota, which went all the ways up to the US Supreme Court, where they lost. Is there a Suskind-Barack link that should be considered?

Hey Ben
Thanks man - where can I join your club.
I mean right on - that whole 911 thing was a farse and there ain't no evil in the world.
Can't we all just get along and talk about it. Pass some more of that purple stuff MAN and let's sing - kumbaya, kum ba yah, cumbayah and kumbayah.
It's all kool man ya know? Ya, gotta be a whacked out right wing fringe nut case to think anybody would want to control society - I mean peace Ben - pass some my way dude.

A party without members? I think that's the way the mafia describe themselves as well, isn't it?
All levity aside, it looks like Ben has either decided to start kissing the Obama ring or is now drinking the same kool-aid that most of the pro-Obama commenters are.
Member or not, and the documentation in the New Party newsletter explicitly describes him as a member, with no known later corrections, Obama was clearly working with and aligned with this party's radical goals.
Maybe Rogers would like to list the "occasional Republican" the New Party endorsed, and maybe Obama would actually like to tell the truth to the American people about his political past instead of running the media-enabled stealth campaign he has.
The so-called mainstream media have sold out to the Obama campaign. I sincerely hope that setting aside their journalistic ethics is worth the 60 seconds of joy they get, should Obama win next Tuesday. I can't see though how someone who has wanted to be a journalist and devoted their lives to journalism will be able to look back at this sorry episode in journalistic history and not honestly realize that they sold all of that to elect one guy.
No wonder so few trust the media. Unfortunately, it's not what the media have said that have given Obama such a pass... it's what they've worked determinedly to not say, indeed to cover up or deny as much as possible.

Ben, on what day did you go into the tank for Obama? Stanley Kurz destroyed your assertions, and he did it with hard evidence and documents, mostly obtained from The New Party itself - including photographic evidence. Kurz also describes in great detail the intermingling of The New Party and ACORN... ...AND Obama's role in both. The New Party and ACORN have the same relationship as do Sinn F?in and the IRA. One is the political arm; the other is the action arm. All the coolaid drinkers on the left who accuse conservatives of lying about this stuff are deliberately ignoring a historical record which is backed up with hard evidence. They are willfully blind; deliberately ignorant. They can't stand the truth, so they choose to ignore the evidence. Karl Marx - who knew a little something about "spreading the wealth around" - had a term for for folks like that. He called them "useful idiots." They will get the government they deserve. I wouldn't really have a problem with that, except that they're dragging the rest of us down the toilet with them. They can choose to willingly traipse down the path to their own destruction if they want to, but don't **** down MY neck and tell me it's raining.
Ben, you have abandoned your journalistic objectivity - if you ever had any in the first place. As one friend of mine said, "The media is far more interested in bringing down the dreaded Joe the Plumber than plumbing Sen. Obama's ties to a corrupt and undemocratic organization." ONE reporter had the temerity, the impudence, the GALL to grill Joe Biden EXACTLY the same way the MSM routinely does to Sarah Palin, and her TV station was banned from any further interviews by the Obama campaign until after the election is over. What are they afraid of? How can you, Ben, in the face of such obvious lack of courage on the part of the Obama campaign, and such lack of integrity and intellectual curiosity on the part of the overwhelming majority of reporters, look at yourself in the mirror each morning and like what you see? When you roll over like that and submit, like a good dog, you hasten the day when your ability to ply your trade without interference from government comes to pass. During the 8 years of Bush's presidency, the white house press corps treated Bush, for the most part, with obvious skepticism and candid disrespect. And for 8 years, President Bush tolerated the abuse with good humor. He had the courage to face extremely tough questioning and rough handling by a press corps that, for the most part, didn't like him. We are about to have a new president who bans reporters from access if they ask hard to answer questions. THIS is the petty tyrant you are rolling over for. I realize that, as much time as you guys spend sucking Obama's toes, you're not likely to want to ask him any tough questions (Bill O'Reilly is the only interviewer who had the backbone to give Obama a tough interview). But God forbid something should ever come up that stirs your intellectual curiosity or sense of outrage enough to try and ask him a hard question. If you ever do, he'll just revoke your white house press credentials. That's how he operates. It is jack booted thuggery, and you're just laying down and rolling over for it. You guys have become PRAVDA. Amazing.